Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
Claims on www.findmypast.co.uk, seen on 17 March 2016, promoted an online record set offered by a genealogy company.
Text on one page stated, "The most comprehensive record set ever released". Text on another page stated, "the 1939 Register is the most comprehensive record set ever released ...". The word "ever" was in bold. Text above stated, "Every member of a household ... Full birth dates ... Full names (kept up-to-date until 1991) ... Occupations".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "The most comprehensive record set ever released" and "The 1939 Register is the most comprehensive record set ever released" because they understood that the 1911 census was more comprehensive; and
2. "Every member of a household", because they understood that the register did not include serving members of the armed forces or people born within the last 100 years.
Response
1. Findmypast Ltd said the 1939 Register was the most comprehensive record set ever released because they believed it included much more detail and context than any previous online record set. They said as well as including the basic details that would be seen in a census, for example, name, marital status, age and occupation, it also included a lot of extra supporting information. They said it included details about a household including names and exact birth dates.
They said the register was conducted in a completely unique way compared to any other record set, making it more comprehensive. For example, it was a legal requirement for every person to be registered, and those missed in the initial registration were actively sought out to be added to the register. They said it was also a legal requirement for the register to be updated until 1952 with details of marriages and deaths, and that it continued to be updated until 1991. They said individuals were encouraged to describe their occupations in their own words and in as much detail as possible, the result of which was that the 1939 Register had 7.5 million unique occupation descriptions listed - three times as many as the 1911 census. In some cases, they said the register contained details from earlier years, principally of previous military service.
They said it also included a map of where people lived, and facts and figures about the area in which they lived. That meant that it was possible to search for demographic insights into a particular area at that time. Information included population of the area, most popular surnames, household count, most common household size, demographic split, age breakdown and most popular male and female occupations. They said it created a detailed picture of the area and who lived there, which they said had never been done before in any other data set.
They said there was also historic newspaper coverage from the relevant area, as well as over 200 articles written to give social historic context to what it was like to live during 1939, and historic photographs of the areas in which people lived.
They said the 1911 census only gave name, occupation, birth year (rather than full date of birth) and birth place, and did not give extra supporting information like the 1939 Register did. They said the 1939 Register also included very accurate occupation descriptions because enumerators were required to record exactly what people did, whereas for the 1911 census, people could effectively put down whatever they wanted. They said the 1939 Register, unlike a census, also recorded full details of those who were in prison or other institutions, such as hospitals or orphanages.
They believed the register was the most comprehensive record set ever released because of the rigour applied to gathering the information, its emphasis on personal details rather than statistical data and the fact that it was corrected and updated with more details for over 50 years after it came into being.
2. Findmypast said they explained in the FAQs on their website that the register included the civilian population for England and Wales because the aim was to capture the whereabouts of people at that given time. They said that information was available from each record search page.
They said they were adding new records every week due to the 100-year rule (an individual’s records remained closed for 100 years from their date of birth). They said some names were redacted for people who were still alive for data protection purposes.
Assessment
1. Upheld
The ASA considered that consumers would understand the “most comprehensive” claims to mean that the 1939 Register contained more data than any other comparable record sets, and in particular that, compared to such record sets, there were more records available and/or more information available within each record. We considered consumers were likely to understand the “most comprehensive” claims to relate to the actual data pertaining to each individual, and/or the totality of such data, rather than as relating to items such as the maps, news articles and photographs to which Findmypast referred, or the rigour with which it was carried out.
Findmypast did not provide full details of what was included in each record set. However, we understood that, although the 1939 Register did include some information that was not recorded in the 1911 census, the 1911 census also included some information that was not available in the 1939 Register, such as birthplace, nationality, and the individual's relationship to the ‘head’ of the household. We also understood that there were more than five million more records available to view in the 1911 census than the 1939 Register. In addition, although the complainant had specifically referred to the 1911 census, we considered that the claim was a comparison against all such record sets, and we had not seen evidence on any comparable sets other than the 1911 census.
For those reasons, we did not consider that Findmypast had substantiated the claims that the 1939 Register was the most comprehensive record set ever released, and therefore concluded that they were misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
2. Upheld
We considered that the claim "Every member of a household" was likely to be interpreted by consumers to mean that no members would be missing from data relating to particular households. However, we understood that there were exceptions, such as members of the armed forces, and those born less than 100 years ago (unless proof of death was verified). We considered that including that information elsewhere on the website was not sufficient to remove the impression that data on all household members would be included, and that, in any case, that information contradicted the claim. We concluded that the claim was misleading.
On that point, the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising) and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Findmypast Ltd not to claim that records were the most comprehensive, unless they held evidence to substantiate the claim, or that they included every member of a household if that was not the case.
